• 22Jun

    Vacation interrupted in favor of affordable housing…

    Is creating affordable housing really a priority or do we just want to talk about the problem for another year?

    Here is a comment I received:

    Michael, I’ll admit to being very disappointed with your view on the industrial site for affordable housing. Is this REALLY what we want? This seems like we are segregating these moderate income families and their kids from other residential areas. Their access to parks and trails will be across impossibly busy streets, surrounded by an industrial setting that is bound to cause these homes to never be able to escape the depressed market value such a neighborhood will have.

    Maybe we need a mixed income zoning requirement that would require 15% of these houses to be high market value, so there is equal opportunity for the kind of limited resources this area will provide for residents.

    It seems to me so very much not mixed income housing–help me understand why this is the direction you think we should be going

    Great question Helen, I will try to explain why I support this site.

    First, or decision to approve a site is dependent on our land development rules. The one issue that has come into play general compatibility. A compelling case against this was made by Nick Campion. I like to think I made a compelling case for it. There is some level of subjectivity, so I am not surprising that the Planning was split as was the council. I don’t think any preposterous leaps like when we declared that 50 units per acre was low density residential in Kutzky Park. Any time you find me and Randy Staver on the same side of a split vote, you know things are getting wild…

    That is the legalese, now to the good stuff…

    Is this REALLY what we want? No. I personally would want all affordable housing to be mixed income transit, connected, walkable to most amenities, have access to extensive green space, and have certainty of future compatible neighbors. Perhaps this in not what we want, it is what we need.

    The site is located in an industrial area, but that is misleading. The site is surrounded by uses that are largely technology, transportation, and retail. Industrial land sounds like there could be a superfund site there. Really there are some technology companies there. The site has a small amount of additional residential in the area. My biggest concern would be late night noise issues which we can mostly address through conditions of approval.

    While there are no immediately adjacent parks, there is immediate access to the most heavily used state trail in the state of Minnesota. This safely leads to the nearly 400 acre Cascade Lake Park. I know this route well as I bike it 50 times a year. In addition the proposed development would house more than 160 households and offer some on site amenities.

    One of the most important considerations for affordable housing is good access to jobs & services by walking, biking, and public transportation. This site has some reasonable access to retailers, grocers, and jobs. The transit is not currently great there, but we know this is changing fast. Our transportation and comprehensive plans call for the area where this project is proposed to be mixed use and dense. Further, it is near the intersection of 2 future primary transit routes. Access to transit is actually one of the greatest strengths of this site.

    Right now in Rochester we need thousands of affordable housing units. Since designating this issue as a priority earlier this year the city council has taken no actions to address our enormous shortage. No one policy or development can bring the market into balance, but this, like the inclusionary housing ordinance, can be part of a solution. This project is essentially asking for nothing in public subsidy, at the same time luxury housing in downtown Rochester is getting millions in subsidies (and yes, while mostly voting against these I have supported some offering public improvements).

    Is building housing in an industrial area crazy? Maybe, but we just did it successfully two times. Concerns were raised about the Ashland Village and Flats on First proposals. These projects now provide housing to more than 100 households and I suspect have a substantial waiting list. Of course “affordable” is not the same to all people but we are creating units that are more affordable to more people than we would otherwise have.

    Here is the big picture. We have a site that has been vacant for the 18 years I have lived in Rochester. We need thousands of units of affordable housing. The growth of low wage hospitality, service and retail jobs in the community will only make the situation worse (increasing the minimum will help). We have limited tools to address the problem. Here we have a proposal on a less than perfect, but acceptable site. It would create high quality, safe, healthy, affordable housing for more than 160 households. It would grow the tax base at almost no incremental taxpayer expense. Its hard to fill our 8,000 open jobs without providing people a place they can afford to live.

    Great question Helen, hope the answer articulated my reasoning.

    Tags: , ,

  • 12Jun

    Today I will propose a change to how the City of Rochester oversees $7 million dollars in support for outside agencies. I am frustrated with the status quo and am pursuing corrective action.

    The memo that I prepared for the council can be found here.

    Recent events have shown a persistent weakness in our oversight of public funds. This proposal would create professional oversight and decrease the influence of political connections in the allocation of public funds. I view this as a needed step to restore public faith in our management public funds going to partner organizations. While not every organizations has had issues, every taxpayer dollar deserves meaningful public oversight.

    Here is the approximate amount of taxpayer funds being issued to outside organizations in 2017.

     photo 2017 City Outside Contributions_zps10d0huev.jpg

    Tags: , , , , , , , ,

  • 24May

    Here is the latest information on how I and the city plan to review proposals for the reuse of the armory. I would give a tip of the hat to Nick Campion who started us out on the right foot. He made some good suggestions and I switched how I plan to review these the proposals. In addition Annalissa Johnson & Mark Bilderback (thus a majority of the council) also agreed.

     photo Position on Rochester Armory Proposals_zps5n0olvok.jpg

    The city council will review the 5 proposals at a committee of the whole meeting on June 5th. Due to the heightened interest in the community we will be moving the meeting to a larger venue. For now the 5 proposals are private, but as I receive permission I intend to share those 5 proposals here. I will add links as I get public data.

    Contrary to the case with other decisions, in this case the Council may make their decision by whatever criteria they so choose. We are also free to talk about our thoughts and opinions at any time. In short, we are not in a “Quasi-Judicial” role.

    I would say 3-4 of the proposals were very good. Previously I supported the ACI proposal and again they made a strong proposal.

    I am also interested in your input, please send me questions you think we should ask at the COW meeting. I am going to publish a list here so no one gets to surprised. I have a strong preference in maintaining public ownership of both the Armory and the parking lots. I could see eventually selling the lots, but only after planning is firmed up in the area.

    Some questions I may ask:

    1. Under your proposal would the Armory remain publicly owned? (this is disclosed)
    2. Does your proposal require the inclusion of the parking lots?
    3. If the parking lots are a currently required; would you still pursue the project if those lots remain publicly owned?
    4. If your proposal calls for private ownership of the Armory, would you consider proceeding with a long term lease instead?
    5. If a long term lease would work, what length and terms would you consider?
    6. What do you see as the typical usage and demographics in a given week?
    7. How will your project benefit minority / low income / immigrant communities?
    8. Your question here


    Tags: ,

  • 11May

    I support Tom Ostrom’s unquestioned right to say just about anything he wants that falls under the broad protections of free speech. I don’t know Tom Ostrom, but I do know many of the people that feel targeted by his baseless claims. I do not agree with what he is saying and wish to express this to KROC, paid advertisers on KROC, and the community. That is my free speech. I have great respect for many of the people at KROC and know that quietly they don’t like what is being said either. Read more…

    Tags: ,

  • 03May

    I am really impressed with the detail and analysis contained in this report. All of the recommendations in this report are quite conservative and easily implemented. Robert Hickey of Grounded Solutions engaged a wide range of stakeholders to ensure accuracy of the data.

    Mixed Income Housing Policy Report Read more…

    Tags: , , ,

  • 30Apr

    Most folks know the issues have most focused on, housing, transit, planning, broadband. I am delighted to see significant progress on transit. I requested some additional information to illustrate just how much we are expanding service in the next 5 years. Effectively this is an 80% increase in transit service, expanding hours, routes, and days. Each update will be effective on July 1. Click on the links to see details of every single route.

    Special thanks to Bryan Law for doing such a great job putting this information together.

    Michael –

    You asked about some information about the changes we are proposing with the Transit Development Plan (TDP), especially how those changes might be phased in.  I have links, below, to maps for each of the five years of the TDP, along with a brief note about what we can expect in each year.

    Year 1 (July 2017)

    RPT will be adding service to current routes, especially by expanding the service span (the time of day during which routes run). Almost all weekday peak-hour routes will arrive downtown at least once before 6:00 am, and will also arrive downtown at least once after 7:00 pm. Saturday routes will also be expanded to run from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm. RPT will institute Sunday and holiday service, which will be a repeat of the expanded Saturday schedule.  The map of Year 1 should look much like the current system map; the differences will be in the hours of operation.

     photo 2017_zpsoxnhyj9s.jpg

    2017 Transit Route Details

    Year 2 (July 2018)

    RPT will dramatically change its route nomenclature, expand its geographical service area, and extend much more frequency to routes during off-peak hours (particularly in the midday). Almost all the changes involve the addition of service. Some routes have been reconfigured such that there are more opportunities for transfers to be made in places outside downtown. The Crosstown Loop (Route 91) will begin service, providing even more opportunities for transfers outside of downtown. If RPT’s system looks like a hub and spokes, the Crosstown Loop completes the wheel by adding a rim to it.

     photo 2018_zpshd8cutrd.jpg

    2018 Transit Route Details

    Year 3 (2019)

    An expected shortage of vehicles in Year 2 leads us to anticipate not being able to split the successor to the current Route 8 (serving Country Club Manor) until delivery of new buses in Year 3. In Year 2, the current Route 8 will be renamed Route 50, but will otherwise operate as it currently does. In Year 3, however, this will finally be split into Routes 52 and 54, allowing for more efficient service to the northern and southern halves of the neighborhood.

     photo 2019_zpslvyxouu4.jpg

    2019 Transit Route Details

    Year 4 (2020)

    In the fourth year of the TDP, an east-west Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route – as contemplated by the Destination Medical Center plan – might be feasible. This route would connect St Marys Hospital and Mayo’s main campus, and might continue to points further east, before terminating and turning around near the K-Mart site on 9 St SE. This is represented on the map by Route 84.

     photo 2020_zps6moyozvc.jpg

    2020 Transit Route Details

    2021 – North-South BRT service

    In the fifth year of the TDP, a north-south BRT route could be established along Broadway Ave., connecting the northeast side of the City with the airport. This is represented on the map by Route 84.

     photo 2021_zpsstypewhd.jpg

    2021 Transit Route Details

    I hope this helps.  Let me know if there is anything else I can provide you.


    Bryan Law, AICP

    Transit Planner | Rochester Public Transit


  • 16Apr

    Here is a note from constituent Paula Hardin. I appreciate her thoughts and wished to share. There are a few suggestions that I disagree with, but many more with which I concur. I am sharing with her permission.


    As you know, the library is central to my life, even if I was not disabled due to multiple sclerosis, libraries and books have been a constant in my life. I have used ALL the library iterations in Rochester ever since I was a toddler. I can say with certainty that it made me a better person and enriched my life in so many ways that I scarcely know how to describe it.

    It was actually a surprise to that it took me until 1983 to figure out I could and should go to graduate school to get my Master’s degree in Library and Information Science. Among the several areas of special studies, my classes included archival management, thesaurus construction, and  I also completed the entire separate Museum Studies program, law librarianship (I think the first non-lawyer allowed to do so), and project management from the Business School.
    I have lived and travelled all over the country (all but 3 states) and been a dedicated patron of libraries everywhere I lived. I have been a library tourist, visiting libraries around the world. In what is apparently a really hard thing to do even with advanced notice and preferring of credentials, I was allowed in to the famous Bodelian library and I touched books that existed in 1500 and before; it was a spiritual experience for me.
    Additionally, architecture has been a hobby of mine, and library history an area of special study (I was going to write a book).
    My application of my library studies has been non-traditional. One of my areas of national expertise was on developing and designing digital libraries. Before my multiple sclerosis worsened, I took PhD classes with plans to attend the program to study user interface design. Since I know art as an art major and was a graphic designer for many years, combined with my computer and database expertise, it was a goal I was very sad to have to give up because of my health.
    Now that I have some of my credentials covered to establish my expertise on all things library, this is what my recent research and attendance at library board meetings has led to reassess my support for library expansion downtown and say with absolute certainty that the best choice is BUILD A NEW LIBRARY.
    I wish my health situation would have let me serve on the Library Board because I think I would have been perfect for the post. However, since they do have public comment, I have taken advantage of that to share my research and make suggestions. I have also written directly to Audrey in her capacity as library director about a number of things, and she recently proposed (3-15) one of my ideas I had written her about to the board (without acknowledging my contribution) that was met with great enthusiasm.
    I have asked for but not received any copies or links to the $40,000 plus study that was originally done about 5 years ago or more that concluded that EXPANSION was the best alternative. As you may recall, I have been a supporter of expansion.
    I have changed my mind and even have come to question the validity of the original research and definitely their conclusion! I realized this when I spoke to some other members of the community, random people who were attending my American Sign Language class.
    They were very bitter about the 125 LIVE debacle (including scorn for the name which I think is the widespread opinion of it). Admittedly, most of the arguments made by one woman in particular were, let’s call it not progressive, though she adamantly voiced support for the public library — just had reservations about the many millions of dollars and other factors that indicated she was not a user of the library since she did not know basic functions available.
    What happened when I spoke to her, though, was a sudden awareness that my coming late to the party (due to caregiving for my late mother) meant I had been thinking of the library EXPANSION as if were vetted to be the optimal solution (branches discussion notwithstanding and not worthy of even being discussed as viable to anyone with a clue).
    So I reassessed the reason why so much effort has gone into the obsession with expanding an atrociously awful, outdated, and actually wretched location for a public library.
    The #1 thing that struck me was the prioritization of people dependent on transit to be able to get to the library. As the non-progressive lady pointed out, “Who do you serve?” The absolute truth is that the majority of the library users are NOT transit dependent and use cars for very good reasons.
    For one thing, transit is never going to be free, and never going to be cheap even if subsidized, and is that the best use of money to serve a tiny percentage of users or potential users? If a mom with 3 kids wants to go to the library, that is 4 bus fares in two directions, and possibly requires a transfer and even a short walk. Even if each fare were only $1.00, that costs the family $8.00 to make that visit and a realistic estimate of 1 HOUR to get from home to bus stop to downtown to library.
    What I do not understand, although I suspect the answer is the liberal obsession with serving the disadvantaged over the 99% of main users of the library. I am NOT advocating EXCLUDING the disadvantaged. I am saying do something else to serve that population that might be better, cheaper, and more efficient.
    Like BOOKMOBILES with hotspots and a computer for users without computers or internet (although there is an app for cell phones which many people however poor HAVE TO HAVE to function in contemporary society Jason Chaffetz’s baseless opinion to the contrary.
    I have made that suggestion based on a librarian’s suggestion in the video online during the 2016 Post Bulletin public discussion on the project. She pointed out that the Bookmobile was, essentially, a BRANCH library. So my idea immediately became, what we need instead of branches (that still would require $$$$ transit with all of the time and hassle I mentioned before), we could add one or two bookmobiles.
    I sent Audrey some links to new, energy efficient, bookmobiles. She is busy doing her job and more with the school thing going on and so much else. She doesn’t have time to research and there is no money, and given the inadequacy of the previous OVERPRICED “research” study, there is no money to do it over by someone with a clue. But I have a vested interest in the future of the library and I have the time. And I have a clue.
    In the video, a very astute lady in the audience made some very thoughtful and pointed remarks questioning some of the unspoken assumptions that led to the expansion as the best option.
    I have heard Audrey say many times, as if it were factual, that since a new library would cost the same as the expansion, “it is a wash” therefore she concludes we may as well do the expansion. Sometimes she mentions land cost. There is a phrase for the fundamental problem this belief causes, something like “opportunity cost” meaning that things you could do with a new building warrant consideration and higher weighting.
    No disrespect to Audrey in  ANY OF THIS. She is doing a great job. The library is understaffed, heavily used, and is badly designed. It also serves as a day time homeless shelter which has been a problem of public libraries since at least the 80s. But that’s another problem requiring a solution.
    The cost basis of new versus expansion is falsely framed as the ONLY difference between the two when that is so obviously false that I am astonished that it even took me awhile to question that assumption.
    With a new library, you get NEW from scratch facilities that will last 20 years instead of a patchwork throwing good money after bad.
    New HVAC with all the energy star bells and whistles and new ductwork, local control of air flow and temperatures in meeting rooms, that could perhaps make it possible for me to actually attend a meeting in a conference room there again without nearly having a fatal asthma attack from the lack of fresh air that could filter out heavy scented perfume odors with the door closed.
    It could be a GREEN building, like the Vancouver (B.C. Canada) Public library. It could use locally sourced materials. It could be DESIGNED by someone competent beyond the dozens of AUTOCAD 101 buildings that exist in town.
    I could go on and on with dozens more aspects that do not seem to have been even considered since the choice was to push expansion.
    As you know, there is inadequate dedicated handicapped parking already. People are constantly having to double park to pick up kids, or as has happened to me at least 5 times in the last two months, they sit in the handicapped spots to wait thinking, hey, I’m just going to be here for a little bit, what are the odds someone handicapped will need this space. I have gotten out of my double parked car to ask someone to move their vehicle several times, and let it go many more.
    The space in front of the disabled spots is inadequately painted and just big enough for a good parallel parker to park there, no doubt planning to offer the “oh I didn’t realize it wasn’t a parking place” excuse if busted. I get a ticket for 10 minutes over the 30-minute meter but never once have I seen the NO PARKING space (not that there is a sign) in front of the handicapped space with a ticket. And the people who park there frequently do stay more than a few minutes to just pick up books.
    Another woman I spoke to at the ASL class said she went there to do genealogy because they have a subscription to Ancestry.com and she needs to spend hours there. Well, that means she has to park in the ramps because the meters are 30-minute and 2-hour across the street — leading to constant jaywalking of course, a public safety hazard. This means the public library is not really “free”  — and as I pointed out to the Board members who obviously never gave it a moment’s thought: library employees have to park in the lot at a significant cost of over an estimated $1,000 a year for the privilege of working there.
    I could go more on this, but let’s be realistic: FREE PARKING incorporated under a new library building or a paved lot, or both would enable many more people to use the library without it costing them a day’s budget for food to park there.
    Taking two toddlers and a baby on the bus is never going to be cheap compared to a car. Parking in the garage and dragging the two kids out and making sure they don’t get hit by a car coming in to park while getting a baby out of a car seat and into a stroller, and then going through doors and possibly an elevator ride to get to the skyway, which has a non ADA slope to travel the 1/4 mile (I measured) to the ELEVATOR to go down to the door of the library, and all that just to PICK UP SOME CHILDREN’S BOOKS, and repeat the journey back to the car must surely be an ordeal to much to consider. They might not even make it in the free hour time limit. They certainly don’t have any time for “story hour” or “discovery” under such circumstances.
    How can FREE PARKING all by itself not been a criterion that would sway the decision to a new building? Free for staff and patrons!
    But here’s another idea that the wretches that did the fatally flawed study didn’t address: a new facility could have a DRIVE THROUGH PICKUP WINDOW. Many public libraries have gotten on the ball with this UNIVERSAL DESIGN feature. When I am stuck in my electric wheelchair, I would LOVE to be able to just drive my vehicle through a pickup and BETTER drop off rather than have to get out of the car, travel through snow and ice and rain, just to be able to pick up my books.
    And I am guessing THOUSANDS of other library users would love that as well. Moms and Dads with kids especially! How can that OPPORTUNITY not have been covered in the new v. expansion pros and cons?
    There would be no extra staff required because the design of the building would have to (please let me provide OVERSIGHT!) place the circulation desk and reserves adjacent to the book drop off and pick up. Right now the library spends time and money pulling books off the shelves that people reserve online.
    This includes interlibrary loans and music and videos, all of which are shelved behind the circulation desk and require the staff at the desk to get for you. One lovely drive though and all of that could be managed with existing staff, or possibly fewer depending on other factors if PEOPLE COULD DRIVE THROUGH and pick up reserves.
    One person commented on the chi chi phrase of “discovery” being used by library people to describe the opportunities of browsing and finding other material of interest. Indeed “discovery” is a primary reason I am 100% committed to a central library (this does NOT mean downtown center location).
    People cannot and should not be forced to park and shuffle kids or get out a wheelchair, or walk when they are too fatigued to do so under the guise that a drive through pickup for reserves would PREVENT “discovery” because these people are NOT THERE TO BROWSE. They did their browsing ONLINE that’s why they did the reserves! When they have time and they think parking will be available or free, they can take all the time they want for “discovery” but that is NOT an acceptable argument to oppose a DRIVE THOUGH PICK UP WINDOW.
    Interlibrary loans actually COST THE LIBRARY $10 per book to obtain. Yet, all too often they are never picked up. Why? MAYBE THE PERSON REQUESTING COULDN’T FIND PARKING within the 5 day limit. (Much more education needs to be done to teach people how to use the library and what services are offered. For example, if you can’t make the pick up deadline, you can call and ask for a few days more until you can get there.)
    One other idea I had was a way to make the pulling of reserves and return shelving faster, easier, and more efficient. A book elevator. These are like dumbwaiters, only for books. If you have a book elevator right by drop off bins and reserve shelves, you can easily sort fiction from nonfiction for example, and send the books up to the appropriate floor. A new building with this in mind could plan for this and layout the shelving to match what a book elevator could provide as a first level sorting, reducing the number of mass book sorting and carting considerably.
    They may have a staff use elevator, I don’t know, but the existing elevator is PAINFULLY DECREPIT and ugly and small. I doubt I could fit in there with my future electric wheelchair that will have to tilt back to take pressure off my spine and my left leg has to be stretched outward because of arthritis in my hip.
    Imagine how nice and fun it would be to do a GLASS ELEVATOR so people could see outside and inside. It could even be lit with changing color LED artwork type enhancements that would clearly show from a distance if the library were open or not. There is a parking garage in Ohio like this. I have pictures. It is cool. Also one in Reno. I also have pictures.
    So another question you have to ask yourself is, DID THE ORIGINAL STUDY even consider actually disabled people at all? The landscape designer for DMC admitted she had never considered what her landscape designs would be like from a wheelchair perspective (or a child or a short person either I am guessing).
    It is one thing to have some numbers provided by decades old legislation, but the INTENT of the ADA is UNIVERSAL DESIGN. For example, if you went for a flat pave lot, AND IT SNOWED, a disabled person in a wheelchair would have trouble clearing the snow from their car even if they were only in the library a short time. So might an elderly person, or a mom dealing with kids. MAYBE A PAVED LOT IS NOT A GOOD IDEA, or maybe something along the lines of a carport style that would keep cars clean and provide a COVERED WALKWAY into the library as well.
    The space above could either be library space, maybe an auditorium since that is clearly lusted after by all concerned for the round bit of the existing library (but a new one could have it too). Or a green area with benches to sit in and enjoy some plantings and park benches on nice days. Of course, you could do pocket park on the ground level as well. The Cleveland Public library has a lovely little urban spot with a Maya Lin sculpture in it as well as other book themed statues and benches.
    Oh the possibilities of a new library make my heart soar! Why oh why did no one on the study even look at these opportunities?
    As I note in my email to Audrey and my public statement to the board last week (attached), they have not done any serious consideration of all the possible options for funding the library out there.
    Named rooms for big donors, such as the Mayo auditorium perhaps? How about the IBM computer lab including computers and other tech contributions? How about BROADBAND donated by Charter/Spectrum? There are some funds available for bricks and mortar sometime through the Minnesota State Library programs funded by the IMLS (Institute of Museum and Library Services), though this program is going to be axed in the current budget, but there might be time and enough money to get in for the last bit.
    Audrey never even asked DMC for funds. We all know, and the lady I spoke to even said, it make sense to put a HOTEL right across from the convention center. Surely that location is worth millions to a hotel developer, connected by skyways and right across from it!
    I have lots more ideas on funding, and have been a successful grant writer in the past as well as a reviewer for IMLS grants.
    Like the bookmobile expansion to bring the library to the people instead of bricks and mortar inflexible and expensive options on many levels, I have lots of ideas of how the library could serve the visitors without them having to have a car to get there. One could be that the hotels would offer their already existing shuttles to do a daily run to the new library location if people requested it. No need, no run. No extra cost to the library or the city to provide access. Another amenity for hotels to offer to give them a competitive edge using vehicles that otherwise would simply be parked.
    The library has a large room filled with books that did not sell at the Friends bookshop and aren’t suitable or needed for the collection. Kind of like the Little Free Libraries popping up, maybe a city ordinance would be required, but why not just OFFER THE BOOKS TO LITTLE FREE LIBRARIES? Much better than pulping. I have a picture of a great bus stop that has book shelves with library books on them to read while you wait, and/or take with you on the ride. Then you could just put it back at another BUS STOP LIBRARY. Since the books would be destroyed anyway (is that a cost or a gain for the library?) why not let the people who paid for them originally enjoy them?
    Please support me in this cause to change from supporting expansion of the library to a new library building. Hopefully on the 9 acres of land the City has where the old Think bank building was. This would allow for some much needed green space rather than the horrendous concrete pile that is the library now, including the lining of the river.
    OH and another thing the original study had as a MAJOR FAIL was the so-called “wash” of the differences did not include THE UTTER MADNESS OF TRYING TO KEEP A PUBLIC LIBRARY OPEN WHILE UNDER MASSIVE RECONSTRUCTION AND REPLACEMENT OF HVAC and more.
    Drive through pick up – opportunity lost
    Free parking – opportunity lost
    Green building – opportunity lost (Platinum LEED!)
    Serving the needs of the 99% of users – opportunity lost
    Integrating green space, park benches, nature programs – opportunity lost
    Serving the needs of the disabled and elderly and families – opportunity lost
    Bookmobile expansion to serve unmet needs – opportunity lost
    Enhanced contemporary functionality  (book elevator, rolling stacks) – opportunity lost
    NAME ARCHITECT for NOTABLE AWARD WINNING BUILDING to enhance the city generally – opportunity lost
    Combine with Children’s museum, Disabled MSers housing, and possible community center — even arts center — that won’t happen at the Armory – opportunity lost
    Kiss transit dollars goodbye — not a realistic basis for planning the best LIBRARY TO MEET THE PUBLIC NEEDS
    I will stop now, but as you might suspect, I have a lot more research, ideas, and I think I could find a way to make a new library building of 180,000 square feet at the City owned land be possible for LESS THAN 55 million dollars. Google Cedar Rapids, Iowa Public Library to see a nice new building.

    Read more…


  • 11Apr

    Long time developer Bill Gerrard passed away last weekend. I had the pleasure of meeting “Big G” at the Good Food Store many years ago. At the time the City of Rochester was going to take requests for proposals for the former Minnesota Energy site in Downtown Rochester. He chatted with me a little because I was newly on the council as well as being on the Co-op board. I remember him suggesting that his family was hesitant to do a proposal because of Rochester’s reputation of not giving outside developers a fair shot. While I could make any promises, I did say that I wanted to make sure that the process was fair to all. I wanted Rochester to reward the best ideas, not the best connected. Read more…

  • 09Apr

    Here is our Public Works Department draft 2017 Herbicide use policy. If you have any feedback please leave it in the comments.


  • 22Mar

    We continue to fix the ills of generations past and heal our watershed.


    Your application titled Wetland-Prairie Restoration on South Branch Cascade Creek has been selected for partial funding through the FY2017 Round 2 Metro Conservation Partners Legacy Grant Program. You’ve been awarded $198,800 in reimbursable grant funds. Please note that these funds will expire June 30, 2019. As indicated in your application, this timeline should fit your project. We had unprecedented demand for Metro funds this time around, so in order to fund more projects, we are granting unused dollars from previous years that will expire sooner.

    CPL staff will be contacting you over the next few days with instructions for meeting the grant contract requirements. A Grant Contract must be fully executed before any work can begin on your project. Any expenses incurred before the contract is executed will not be eligible for reimbursement. All paperwork will be completed using electronic signatures to expedite this process.

    Thank you for your dedication to preserving Minnesota’s natural resources. We look forward to working with you to complete your project!

    Jessica Lee

    CPL Program Coordinator | Division of Fish and Wildlife

    Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

    500 Lafayette Road, Box 20

    St. Paul, MN 55155

    Phone: 651-259-5233


    Tags: , ,

« Previous Entries